Wanted: Pics of Jeff Smiths 1964 BSA

[matcho mick]

looked at a B40 tiz arvo,thinking it was x army,been painted civvy black ,engine numbers GA-331,is A for army??,(B40G's 67 model) F is 66,

[mainline]

looked at a B40 tiz arvo,thinking it was x army,been painted civvy black ,engine numbers GA-331,is A for army??,(B40G's 67 model) F is 66,

Yep, GA is the b40wd model - army

http://bsawdb40.com

[bazza]

B40WD =  War Dept

[FourstrokeForever]

Good to read I was of some help. I would of thought that all B40's were eligible for Pre65. After all, we know the B44's were available to the public in late 1964 and by 1965 they were around in bigger numbers. With that in mind, surely the B40 had reached it's development end before 1965 and were then given to military service throughout UK and Australia in 1964. They were side point motors.

Apart from that, I know of 2 pre65 fourstrokes (not saying what brand of bikes or riders) that look like they run the magneto but are in fact a total loss system in disguise. And before anyone asks, I do not ride pre65 

[Bamford#69]

Hi
If anyone is going to build a new Pre 65 bike have a good read, and look, at this  essential historical document ,
"British Scramble Motorcycles" The men and their magnificent machines,
this is a factual historical record of period (dated) photographs taken and published in the day
 If BSA had produced a B44, in 1964, that was available, and racing, it would have been on the front page of  every magazine in the land ,
Dont get too invovled with what you see and read about current English pre 65 racing and rules , our criteria in Aus is different , Its interesting to look at the photos what they really used in 1964 and what they are using today as aPre 65 bike 
I'm not an  expert in anything ,  I thought B40 WD Army models were up to 67 in Aus  and used B44 frames,
does anyone have evidence of this ,
BSA B44 of any discription is a great Pre 70 bike ,  B40 motor and B40 frame is Pre 65
cheers   

[firko]

After all, we know the B44's were available to the public in late 1964 and by 1965 they were around in bigger numbers

I've always believed to be correct that the B44 was first shown to the public at the Earls Court Show in November 1965 and not on the showroom floor until a few weeks after that.

In 1965 an off road motocross BSA B44 named the ‘’Victor’’ was launched at the Earls Court Show. Developed from scramblers used by Jeff Smith to win the 1964 and 1965 500cc World Championships, the model proved so popular that Victor Grand Prix and Victor Enduro models were developed,[4] as well as a road-going version, the 1967 Victor Roadster. The Victor Grand Prix Scrambler had a displacement of 441cc, and the Enduro model was known as the 441 Victor in the United States. BSA began offering a road version, the B44VR Victor Roadster, in 1967. When that model was exported to U.S. dealers in 1968, the name was changed to the B44SS Shooting Star.[1] The B44VS Victor Special was also successfully exported to the US between 1968 and 1970 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_B44_Shooting_Star
                                                                                      *************************

The 441cc B44 was a relatively successful manifestation. First shown at the end of 1965 as a motocross model the B44 was ostensibly developed from the 400cc and 420cc prototype scramblers upon which Jeff Smith had famously secured the 1964 and 1965 500 MX World Championships. Jeff had begun his campaign for the sport’s top prize in 1963, in which he was placed 3rd overall, and he continued this crusade through 1967, gaining a fine 2nd and a further valiant 3rd place alongside his two world titles. It was a fast moving 5-year period, which finally saw every 4-stroke brand, except BSA, superseded by the new breed of 360cc and larger sized 2-strokes.
Almost inevitably BSA’s mx model Victor Grand Prix was launched at the Earls Court Show, Britain’s annual November exhibition, which in 1965 opened its doors to 140,000 eager visitors. The bike, quite correctly, attracted considerable criticism from potential customers because – in what was a typical BSA policy decision – it was produced to a spec’ that yet required its rider to spanner the bike into a Race Ready condition…unlike the fully prepped Greeves and CZs on adjacent booths! Nonetheless the contemporary market was hungry, the B44 itself was admired by the anti 2-stroke brigade, and it did sell satisfactorily. Street legal versions with lights and mufflers duly followed. The B44VS Victor ‘Special’, aimed specifically at America’s burgeoning trail market, began in 1968, and continued in production over the next three seasons. http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16078/lot/188/

[huskibul]

      #69 i dont think anyboby want's to build a hot-rod like we see OS, just use their sidepoint B-40's in their rightful era within the guideline's as youve stated B-50= pre 75, B44=pre70, B40=pre65 , the WDB-40 -GA models had  bsa non oil-in-frame's , same as earlier C-15/B-40  frames of all persuasions not B44,this issue needs to be cleared up once and for all, there are people with these motors/bike's that are hanging in limbo as to what to do with them 

[firko]

B-50= pre 75, B44=pre70, B40=pre65

Without getting into a lengthy post on why this bike fits that classification I agree with the above summation, no matter whether the B40 has got points or a dissy. Now all we need is to allow points equipped unit Triumph 500s into pre 60 and the world will be a better place .

[huskibul]

      Exactly Firko wheres the advantage between dissy and sidepoint ? and i cant imagine spectators at the races giving two hoot's whether the bike that just blew past has a dissy tower or not ,their just glad to see more bikes !

[firko]

I was talking to the mate of a mate about this B40 side point/distributor situation yesterday. He's a well known road racer that specialises in Beeza's with the unit singles being his main area of interest. He told me that he's certain that the points WD engine with the close ratio transmission was available prior to 1965. He told us he was going to go through his extensive BSA literature and get back to us as soon as he finds the relevant info.
 
In the meantime Jonesy told me he has a book with close up shots of Black Bess's engine. He too is going to dig it out and pass it on. As interesting as those photos might be, I don't think Black Bess can be used as proof. I may stand corrected on this but I'm fairly sure that works bikes can't be used to prove a parts legitimacy. I think we've discussed this before with regards to RC Hondas and RH Suzukis featuring parts later introduced into production and therefore the parts being allowed. I once discussed this with  a committee member and he told me that works bikes can't be offered as proof of a parts existence. Even though Smiths '64 title winning bike was allegedly based on a B40, it was still a 'works' B40 and those cases could have been specially cast or even if they were legitimate 'pre production' cases, that's what goes against them....the PRE part of pre production alluding to them coming a year later on production machinery...which would be 1965.

I'm only playing 'bad cop' in a good/bad cop argument and still believe that all B40's should be allowed. I'm merely offering up what might be used in a an argument against the points engine.

[FourstrokeForever]

It seems that I was led astray by a so called expert on all things B44 related....See my prior post for his name. Now I know why the argument for B44 being rejected as a Pre65 eligible machine came to it's conclusion. You blokes have given me a new knowledge of the fabled B44. Thanks  I should of known better than to take his word on anything after I saw the job he did on my B50's clutch when it failed for the second time. I didn't have time to work on the bike at the time as my business was keeping me away from the shed....

      Exactly Firko wheres the advantage between dissy and sidepoint ? and i cant imagine spectators at the races giving two hoot's whether the bike that just blew past has a dissy tower or not ,their just glad to see more bikes !

And isn't it all about getting more bikes on the start line and out of sheds......
 I say that IF the beeza is a B40 frame and a correct B40 motor, it should be Pre65 eligible, regardless of whether it a dissy or points motor. Surely the points engine could be classified as a follow on, no distinct advantage model?

[firko]

See my prior post for his name. Now I know why the argument for B44 being rejected as a Pre65 eligible machine came to it's conclusion

The bloke in question was the original antagonist against Vern Grayson's Triumph. That should tell you something .

[huskibul]

    Firko i dont know how to post pics or articles but as ive said i have an original uk"MotorCycle" mag that i got specifically from uk for the 4 page article Jeff Smiths Story dated 1 october 1964 where jeff clearly states that the case's he ran in first 9 rounds were "Production" even though his bike was works- surely if theres pics of the bike in those rounds as a side point there is no question,- iam also playing good cop/bad cop but at least were getting  clarity                                                                                                                                           Ps          Hopefully that  64' army  info  comes thru , some those sites are conflicting and also sounds like some of the the guys that restore the WD models are against using the motors/bikes as trials /mx /specials ? 

[TM BILL]

I was talking to the mate of a mate about this B40 side point/distributor situation yesterday. He's a well known road racer that specialises in Beeza's with the unit singles being his main area of interest. He told me that he's certain that the points WD engine with the close ratio transmission was available prior to 1965. He told us he was going to go through his extensive BSA literature and get back to us as soon as he finds the relevant info.
 
In the meantime Jonesy told me he has a book with close up shots of Black Bess's engine. He too is going to dig it out and pass it on. As interesting as those photos might be, I don't think Black Bess can be used as proof. I may stand corrected on this but I'm fairly sure that works bikes can't be used to prove a parts legitimacy. I think we've discussed this before with regards to RC Hondas and RH Suzukis featuring parts later introduced into production and therefore the parts being allowed. I once discussed this with  a committee member and he told me that works bikes can't be offered as proof of a parts existence. Even though Smiths '64 title winning bike was allegedly based on a B40, it was still a 'works' B40 and those cases could have been specially cast or even if they were legitimate 'pre production' cases, that's what goes against them....the PRE part of pre production alluding to them coming a year later on production machinery...which would be 1965.

I'm only playing 'bad cop' in a good/bad cop argument and still believe that all B40's should be allowed. I'm merely offering up what might be used in a an argument against the points engine.

Mark its good that you are looking at it from both sides . It seems that the opinion ( on this forum anyway ) is that the majority would be happy with the side points motors being allowed . Who is likley to oppose there inclusion and why ?

Surley a loosening of the rules a little ( i know where does it stop ) for the older classes can only be a good thing . I know rules are rules but who are the rules for ?, i would have thought that the rules should reflect the opinion of majority of people involved in that particular era .

[Ted]

No where in the MoMS does it say works parts cannot be used

For a works bike to have a part fitted, the part has to exist prior to fitting.